Under the provisions of liability laws, each person involved in an accident is responsible for their own damages. That means that any injured party must have his or her damages handled by the insurance company. From which they had purchased a policy.
Some states make an exception to their liability laws, in certain cases. According to that exception, the liability laws do not apply if the crash victim sustains a serious injury, or suffers property damage that exceeds a given figure.
Some states provide their residents with the chance to purchase no fault auto insurance. That special policy can have different name: personal injury protection (PIP). Regardless of its name, it covers any injury sustained by the policyholder, no matter who has been held liable for the injury-creating accident. The PIP coverage does not apply to vehicle damage, as per Personal Injury Lawyer in Waterloo.
Additions to policies: Some insurance companies give their policyholders the chance to buy added coverage, such as uninsured motorist coverage, or underinsured motorist coverage. That can prove useful in a state that does not have no fault insurance.
A story about a time before no fault auto insurance
There was a time when no insurance company offered uninsured motorist coverage. In fact, when insurers began to market such coverage, not all policyholders understood what was being offered. The wife of one policyholder did appreciate the benefits associated with the new optional protection.
She appreciated that benefit, because she had been forced to deal with the family’s insurance company, following a rear end collision. The driver responsible for rear-ending the family’s station wagon was a drunk and uninsured motorist. He could not cover the damage.
At that time, the insurance company did its best to minimize the extent of the damage, so that it would not have to pay as much for the repairs. The same insurance company was told that no one had been injured.
What might have happened if the insurance industry had introduced uninsured motorist coverage before the date of that rear-end accident? Would that have forced the insurance company to be more accommodating, when asked to cover the costs of the damage to the family’s station wagon? Would the affected family have given greater thought to the claim that no one had been injured?
In fact, the medical history for one of the younger passengers suggests that she was injured by that rear-end impact, although there is no proof of that fact. That former crash victim has developed an interest in traumatic brain injuries. She wants to spread the word about Nfl (Neurofilament light chain), which has shown potential as a marker for those disabilities that have become associated with mild traumatic brain injuries.